Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #5

[Hope4More]

Next I hope Sheriff Joe advises JSS that the sentencing should be moved up by weeks because JA's long list of violations warrants an immediate removal to Perryville.

 

[MeeBee]

http://cdn-static.wildabouttrial.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/arias-minute.pdf


They were onto Juror 17 all along, but they didn't want to delay things two weeks in order to serve a supeona on her Facebook accounts.
Flores apparently didn't research her husbands Facebook to see the tie to MDLR, nor did he research hubbie's background.


Justice Denied !!!

I think Juan didn't have the foresight to check anyone's facebooks until the jury complained about 17. He decided to see what she was about and once he saw her liked pages realized there was a problem but by then it was too late.

It is interesting to me that Wilmott fought to keep this juror on when usually the defense is always trying to get a juror, any juror kicked off. I wonder if she also saw what her liked pages were and thought she had a good shot with this one and if so when she realized this? I have a feeling the defense had been monitoring their pages all along whereas Juan did not check on it until the end when he realized there was something off.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I'm still waiting to let them investigate before I conclude whether or not there was any misconduct or not, I still think that's a strong possibility. But this all could've been avoided had they excused her during jury selection.

Yes, me too, let's see what they have and see if she actually lied on her questionnaire, if she didn't I can't see how anyone can prove misconduct. I mean, this is kind of awkward for the state IMO.

 

[sammie]

Anything can happen when you go to court. Anything. I certainly am not telling them how to grieve. I think what I want most is them not to be hurt any more than they already are. I just feel like another courtroom is just going to cause them more pain.

The burden of proof is considerably lower in civil court..slam dunk. Ridiculous thought that they won't win.

 

[cady]

Respectfully, I disagree. We filed a civil suit in regards to my brother's murder. We won. The money was used to fund 3 scholarships: One at Duke University, one at the Hill School, and one for the Children of the Chester County Detectives who solved my brother's murder.

While you are entitled to your opinion, I take it you have never walked in these shoes. IMOO

Zuri, luckily most of us have not walked in your shoes and yes, I believe that the family will win the civil suit hands down. My only point was that it will keep the wounds glaringly and painfully open, because JA will make sure that she gets in a few more stabs against Travis to defend herself. It is CERTAINLY their decision whether to pursue the wrongful death case or not. It's no one else's judgment to make. I wish them whatever sense of peace they can muster. JMO

 

[TartLemon]

IIRC, JA also tried to blame the Alexanders for the HUGE expense to the AZ taxpayers because she had graciously offered to take a plea deal that would have her out of prison already or pretty close to it. How utterly altruistic of her, huh?:notgood:

 

[sammie]

I think Juan didn't have the foresight to check anyone's facebooks until the jury complained about 17. He decided to see what she was about and once he saw her liked pages realized there was a problem but by then it was too late.

It is interesting to me that Wilmott fought to keep this juror on when usually the defense is always trying to get a juror, any juror kicked off. I wonder if she also saw what her liked pages were and thought she had a good shot with this one and if so when she realized this? I have a feeling the defense had been monitoring their pages all along whereas Juan did not check on it until the end when he realized there was something off.

They knew the jury was hung and juror 17 was Jodi's only hope to avoid the DP at that point.

 

[Madeleine74]

Ok I read the notes about Juror 17 (the whole PDF).

Both the foreman and Juror 18 said that Juror 17 did (finally) deliberate. Their complaint was that she was not deliberating "effectively." What does effectively mean in terms of the law? After the judge questioned all of them and gave them instructions, apparently the foreman and Juror 18 told the judge it had gotten better. Well that's kind of contrary to what was said during their media interviews.

Which is it? Juror 17 refused to deliberate at all the whole way through or she did participate after the judge inquired and instructed them? Both cannot be true.

As for the Facebook allegations, it couldn't be determined (without a subpoena which would take up to 2 weeks) exactly when Juror 17 had viewed the movie, The Secret, nor what she may have read or clicked on in her FB news stream. Juror 17 claimed she watched the movie before she was ever selected to be a juror, but what date that was, who knows.

It was said that Juror 17 *did* disclose during voir dire that she had watched parts of the Lifetime movie about Arias. Maybe she lied and watched the whole thing, I don't know.

So, at the point of voir dire the info that was known to the state from J17 herself was

- Juror 17 had a history as a victim of DV growing up
- Juror 17 had a history as a victim of DV in her first marriage
- Juror 17 had watched at least some of the Lifetime movie

No red flags there?

Why didn't the state excuse this juror during jury selection? I still don't have answer for that.

 

[Amster]

The jury foreman did say they had hope that J17 was going to join in deliberations.....he said in the interview that they held off saying they were hung to give her a chance to participate. He said things got better after the letter and the modified charge. Then, she evidently shut down, again. She did just enough not to get kicked off.....sly like a fox. Manipulative just like the killer she saved from the DP.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Their failure to find out these things before is a misstep on their part BUT it does not excuse J17 actions. She's a grown woman and ought to understand the need for honesty in a criminal trial, especially of this nature. Not a pass for her. Nope.

But what can they PROVE that's all that matters, how do we KNOW she did the wrong thing? Do we even know she lied?

 

[MeeBee]

For what? What is she using it for? Hershey bars? Isn't it for her defense and appeals?

It is not like she will have a debit card in prison that she can order from amazon yes???

It's the principal Scarlett. The Alexanders would be making a statement more than anything.

She also does apparently have a good amount of money in her commissary. But, again, it's the principal. Jodi has already made to where she herself cannot profit off her infamy, money she could give to her family or what have you, simply because the Alexanders loom. No one but an appeal attorney will ever see that money.

 

[Amster]

Why didn't Sherry talk to all of the jurors? Did only 2 sign the note to her?

 

[Hope4More]

Respectfully, I disagree. We filed a civil suit in regards to my brother's murder. We won. The money was used to fund 3 scholarships: One at Duke University, one at the Hill School, and one for the Children of the Chester County Detectives who solved my brother's murder.

While you are entitled to your opinion, I take it you have never walked in these shoes. IMOO

((Zuri))). The Alexanders know what they want and have earned the right ( a thousand times over) to pursue any kind of justice they see fit without having to justify themselves to anyone. JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's the principal Scarlett. The Alexanders would be making a statement more than anything.

She also does apparently have a good amount of money in her commissary. But, again, it's the principal. Jodi has already made to where she herself cannot profit off her infamy, money she could give to her family or what have you, simply because the Alexanders loom. No one but an appeal attorney will ever see that money.

I don't like Civil cases as a second shot after a criminal one. To me that is the one that matters, I get that people don't agree with me, I just don't see an upside and in the end I think she hurts them over and over again. JMO

 

[Zuri]

Zuri, luckily most of us have not walked in your shoes and yes, I believe that the family will win the civil suit hands down. My only point was that it will keep the wounds glaringly and painfully open, because JA will make sure that she gets in a few more stabs against Travis to defend herself. It is CERTAINLY their decision whether to pursue the wrongful death case or not. It's no one else's judgment to make. I wish them whatever sense of peace they can muster. JMO

Thank you Cady for your kind statement. I took you to task before as I was pretty upset. It is when people who have no earthly clue make statements when they have absolutely no clue what it is like to be a homicide survivor.

I accept their blessed ignorance, as this is not an easy path for the rest of our lives. There for the grace of God go I kinda thing. I just see my mother's face and Yes, I will respond. Each and every time.

 

[cady]

But what can they PROVE that's all that matters, how do we KNOW she did the wrong thing? Do we even know she lied?

And we have not heard from J17.......just from 11 people who had an opposing vote. JMO

 

[Zuri]

I don't like Civil cases as a second shot after a criminal one. To me that is the one that matters, I get that people don't agree with me, I just don't see an upside and in the end I think she hurts them over and over again. JMO

Whether YOU like Civil cases or not is not up for debate. Sometimes I find it is best to stop while you are ahead. Respectfully...

 

[Shelby1]

This fella here is soliciting paid interviews with his wife on why she hung the jury for Arias, in case anybody is interested.

As seen on TV. This would be felon hubby Number #2View attachment 70893

Classy looking guy.....

 

[MeeBee]

IIRC, JA also tried to blame the Alexanders for the HUGE expense to the AZ taxpayers because she had graciously offered to take a plea deal that would have her out of prison already or pretty close to it. How utterly altruistic of her, huh?:notgood:

This is the evidence her supporters use that she is so kind and giving. She was willing to take a lesser charge, not for herself, of course, but for the Alexanders and the taxpayers. She is absolutely ridiculous, as are her supporters. If she really cared, she would have taken a 1st degree plea and gone quietly away. The state easily proved premediation and she knew they would. No one would fault the state for pursuing the proper charges against a criminal. It's stupid.

So easily manipulated.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The more I think about this Juror 17 issue, the more I think it's the right outcome. A life sentence frees the Alexanders from having to continuously go back to court to relive this nightmare, and the issues around this juror are a good lesson for Juan and future prosecutors to check out jurors a lot better during the selection phase .. if she lied to the court she will be raked over the coals and hopefully prosecuted for that, ALSO Nurmi and Wilmott cannot really claim a moral victory, 11 of those jurors wanted to impose death, and there will forever be questions around the lone holdout. Beyond that, Juror 17's husband number 2 is about to get his butt kicked on social media (and perhaps even in the real world) for trying to profit from this situation, and Jodi is going to Perryville for life and will soon fade away.

A fairly good outcome

That's the way I'm looking at it.